↓ Skip to main content

Effect of the Hand-Omitted Tool Motion on mu Rhythm Suppression

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of the Hand-Omitted Tool Motion on mu Rhythm Suppression
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00266
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kazuo Isoda, Kana Sueyoshi, Yuki Ikeda, Yuki Nishimura, Ichiro Hisanaga, Stéphanie Orlic, Yeon-Kyu Kim, Shigekazu Higuchi

Abstract

In the present study, we investigated the effect of the image of hands on mu rhythm suppression invoked by the observation of a series of tool-based actions in a goal-directed activity. The participants were 11 university students. As a source of visual stimuli to be used in the test, a video animation of the porcelain making process for museums was used. In order to elucidate the effect of hand imagery, the image of hands was omitted from the original ("hand image included") version of the animation to prepare another ("hand image omitted") version. The present study has demonstrated that, an individual watching an instructive animation on the porcelain making process, the image of the porcelain maker's hands can activate the mirror neuron system (MNS). In observations of "tool included" clips, even the "hand image omitted" clip induced significant mu rhythm suppression in the right central area. These results suggest that the visual observation of a tool-based action may be able to activate the MNS even in the absence of hand imagery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Other 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Psychology 2 9%
Linguistics 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,458,033
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,079
of 7,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,883
of 339,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#184
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,279 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.